Hillary the Movie: The Sequel at the Supreme Court
A compelling drama at the Supreme Court, where the fate of campaign finance restrictions will be decided.
HILLARY THE MOVIE –
THE SEQUEL
AT THE SUPREME COURT
2009 90 minutes
**** (4 stars out of 5)
Drama
Starring: Theodore B. Olson (for Citizens United) and Floyd Abrams (for Sen. Mitch McConnell)
Costarring: Elena Kagan (for the FEC) and Seth P. Waxman (for Sen. John McCain)
Supporting Cast: the Justices of the Supreme Court
Producer: David N. Bossie Studio: Citizens United
Rating: M for Mature Audiences
This disturbing, powerful sequel to Wisconsin Right To Life v. FEC (directed and produced by Jim Bopp) and McConnell v. FEC premiered at the Supreme Court on Sept. 9 after the Court ordered new arguments at the end of its term in June.
Supreme Court legend Ted Olson, in a potentially award-winning performance (anticipate another nomination by the Republican National Lawyer’s Association for the Lawyer of the Year Award), took the starring role, defending the critical documentary about Hillary Clinton produced by Citizens United in 2007.
Citizens United was prohibited from advertising its documentary or providing it to cable subscribers in an “on demand” format by the villain of the piece, the Federal Election Commission. The heavies claimed that CU’s documentary and advertising was political speech intended to affect a federal election. Thus, CU would violate various provisions of federal election campaign law, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or “McCain-Feingold” as all of the actors in this Washington melodrama call it. All corporations, including nonprofit advocacy organizations like CU, are prohibited from spending any money on federal elections, whether directly as a contribution to a candidate or indirectly as an independent political expenditure.
As the lead actor, Olson was in an odd position. When he was the solicitor general during the Bush administration, he played the role of McCain-Feingold’s defender in the earlier production of McConnell v. FEC. However, in this appearance at the Supreme Court, he had switched sides and was now playing the First Amendment defender, attacking the same law as unconstitutional.
In a forceful soliloquy, Olson opened the show with a ringing denunciation of the government’s claim that “corporate speech is by its nature corrosive and distorting because it might not reflect actual public support for the views expressed by the corporation.” According to Olson, the government had admitted that this “radical concept of requiring public support for the speech before you can speak would even authorize it to criminalize books and signs.”
In her first major studio appearance, ingénue Justice Sonia Sotomayor was soundly corrected by Ted Olson when she complained about the supposed lack of any record on some of the issues being raised by CU. As Olson pointed out, it is the government’s “burden to prove the record that justifies telling someone that wants to make a 90-minute documentary about a candidate for president that they will go to jail if they broadcast it.”
As Olson’s colleague and lead actor, Floyd Abrams’s performance was disappointing, definitely not up to the standards of his previous appearances. His difficulties kept his main message from coming through clearly — that when the Court is faced with a substantial and ongoing threat to freedom of expression, it should not look for a narrower basis to decide a case but should act boldly to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans.
In her debut performance before the Supreme Court (in fact, before any court), new Solicitor General Elena Kagan provided new fodder for the claim that she won her role due not to her lawyering skills, but to her friendship with the chief backer of the Department of Justice, President Obama,.
Her performance lacked depth and sophistication. She exhibited a very out-of-place law professor attitude towards the justices at first (I’m the professor, why are you students questioning me?). She had trouble handling the chief justice’s cross examination about the ever-changing positions the government has taken in this case to justify prohibiting the political speech of all corporations. She even asserted (you could almost see the liberals on the Court shuddering) that the Court should strike down a statute that violates the First Amendment only if it finds many applications of the law that are unconstitutional “as opposed to just a few.” This is quite a narrow view of the First Amendment that would allow the government to engage in substantial censorship, contrary to the language of the amendment and the Court’s precedents.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Hans A. von Spakovsky served for two years as a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. His recess appointment ended on December 31, 2007, when the Senate failed to confirm him because of Democratic opposition to his regular nomination over his support of voter ID requirements despite the Supreme Court upholding their constitutionality. Prior to his appointment to the FEC, he spent four years at the Justice Department, the last three as a career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
2 Comments
1. Descans:It is odd that this government makes arguments that apply with equal force to the corrupting influence of labor unions on political campaigns. Indeed, one might reasonably argue that the government’s position is *more* cogent when applied to big labor.
But this government, being deeply intertwined with big labor, is apparently incapable of seeing how its arguments can be used to undercut its own supporters’ untoward influence in American politics.
Somewhere … sometime … someone must have said something like this: If they could but see what they show!
Sep 16, 2009 - 9:34 am 2. Dave M.:Hold off on any more awards for “Supreme Court legend Ted Olsen”, at least from any organizations who think the will of the people, as reflected through the constitutional exercise of referendum, should be upheld. You see, the legend Ted has joined with David Boies (Al Gore’s lawyer) to bring a federal suit to overturn the collective will of Californians who decided last November that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. I hope the legend loses. He has already lost my respect.
Sep 16, 2009 - 3:33 pm